Should SDP be happy with this exceptional verdict?

[scroobal]

This last portion is where the issues are

1) Behaviour of civil servants who are expected to be politically neutral and are yet engaged in such a behaviour. No reasonable person or organisation can plan well for an event, when the decision is delivered less than 36 hrs from the event.

2) Disgraceful conduct of the PAP in running the ethics of civil servants to the ground.


I would like to see this being included in the curriculumn of LKY School of Public Policy by Kishore Mahbubani who prefers to concern himself with corroding pipes in the US mainland.

What grounds have I to arrive at this perspicuous insight? Simple, my dear Watson. You can tell who are the guilty parties from the way they sneak about.

It's like this: The police almost never give a reply to any application for a permit until the very last minute. Typically, they convey their "No" decision on the evening before the date of the planned event.

(Not just the police. The Media Development Authority is also like that.)

This timing is meant to minimise the chance that the aggrieved applicant will apply for judicial review. He just won't have the time to do so.

I am told by a lawyer that our courts' practice is to refuse to hear cases where the date of the event has already lapsed. They will only take up a case if it is a "live" one. So, if your event is on Saturday and you have only got your "No" answer on Friday night, after office hours, the earliest opportunity for you to file for judicial review would be Monday, but by then, the court will say the matter is moot, and refuse to hear your case.

The police appear to be exploiting this to avoid scrutiny.

So how? Again, the solution is simple, if only some people in high-up places have balls. All it takes is for a court to recognise that by a habit of issuing "No" replies at the last minute, the executive is exploiting court practice to avoid scrutiny and this exploitation is suspicious in itself. Thus, in the interest of justice, the court itself has to lift its own rule of only hearing "live" cases.

It might not save an event whose date has passed, but it can strike down the standing policy and require in future, that each application for a procession must be considered on its own merits and an answer to the applicant given in a timely manner. This way, if the applicant for a future event is still dissatisfied with the answer, he has a chance to file for judicial review of that particular decision before the date of his planned event is past.

© Yawning Bread

 

[kingrant]

This last portion is where the issues are

1) Behaviour of civil servants who are expected to be politically neutral and are yet engaged in such a behaviour. No reasonable person or organisation can plan well for an event, when the decision is delivered less than 36 hrs from the event.

2) Disgraceful conduct of the PAP in running the ethics of civil servants to the ground.


I would like to see this being included in the curriculumn of LKY School of Public Policy by Kishore Mahbubani who prefers to concern himself with corroding pipes in the US mainland.

That is why SDP has to take on the PAP with constitutional issues. Face it, no Opp Party will ever have the chance to prove that they will be as good as, if not better than, the PAP interms of delivering the bread and butter economic goodies.

This is because imho, if there is any electoral upset, the PAP will still be a formidable minority Opposition in Parliament, and with their past entrenched power base in the civil service and judiciary, they can still exploit and leverage on the state apparatus to crreate trouble and frustrate the new govt. I can bet the first term in office of the new govt will be wasted in fending off vindictive attacks from the defeated PAP and for the new govt to dig in. The PAP took at least 2 decades of uninterrupted power to learn the ropes and consolidate power, and another 1 to 2 decades to fine tune its hold by instilling the fear factor.

The PAP is morally and spiritually depraved, and the one thing it doesnt have is pride in playing the game fairly acc to the Westminster rules. It only sets its own rules and forces others to play by them, so challenging the constitutionality and legitimacy of every issue is the only way to break the mold. It will take years but we have to help him bang away at them until the edifice crumbles. Singaporeans esp the younger electorates who have gone to overseas Univs and stayed abroad are mindful of Maslow's needs hierarchy and how life can fuller with more lieberenstraum (sori, if I mispelt).

 

[Ramseth]

Re-read my post. I'm asking for free basic Medishield cover. It's not the same as free medical care. Medishield has deductible and co-payment in case of claim. So the patient needs to pay some too. But free basic Medishield cover ensures that no one is without cover for catastrophic financially crippling medical bills. Nobody would want to get hospitalised and claim Medishield frivolously, because every claim comes with requirements of deductible and co-payment for the patient to pay.

Anyway, you revealed your ignorance. After all these years, you still don't know how Medishield works.

Dear Ramseth,

For a serious politician that understands economics, 100% free basic Medishield coverage will not be optimal. When it is 100% "free", which means its all "Ah Gong's money", everybody will just go into all sorts of irresponsible and wasteful behavior. This is Locke's point.

From both economics as well as real life empirical observations and studies, this will always be the case. All sorts of funny things will happen. Doctors and patients will just demand all kinds of treatments or tests, regardless whether there is any remote possibility that such tests would be helpful in their diagnosis. Drugs will be issued in excess and wastage will arise.

It would be good if Medishield could cover up to 80% or 85% of total medical cost. But I do not believe in 100% coverage.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Ramseth]

It would be good if Medishield could cover up to 80% or 85% of total medical cost. But I do not believe in 100% coverage.

It's already so. In fact, it has always been so since it was introduced in the mid 80s. Whatever gives you the idea that Medishield covers 100%? Your ignorance for the past quarter of a century while ranting upon it is amazing. I'm glad to be at your service here to enlighten you a little. In fact, through the deductible and co-payment and various itemised limits, the average claim size has been 50 to 60%. That was why Khaw Boon Wan increased the premiums to allow for adjustments toward achieving average claim size of 60 to 70%.

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Scroobal

All I can say is that if Alex was a practicing lawyer, I would be knocking on his door :_)). He has both the incisiveness, ruthlessness and cold legal logic so lacking within the SDP.

If anything he has demonstrated or the SDP has demonstrated, that what it has won with blood can be squandered away in ignorance, leading a cow to water and all the rest of it. The question is will they focus like a laser on the "unconstitutionality" of the administration of the act or will they seek to make a claim that the entire act is "unconstitutional" because the " admin and rules " is itself unconstitutional.



Locke

 

[Ramseth]

All I can say is that if Alex was a practicing lawyer, I would be knocking on his door :_)). He has both the incisiveness, ruthlessness and cold legal logic so lacking within the SDP.

If anything he has demonstrated or the SDP has demonstrated, that what it has won with blood can be squandered away in ignorance, leading a cow to water and all the rest of it.

Why would you be knocking on the door of any practising lawyer? Someone's suing you, or you're suing someone? Or the police after you?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Re-read my post. I'm asking for free basic Medishield cover. It's not the same as free medical care. Medishield has deductible and co-payment in case of claim. So the patient needs to pay some too. But free basic Medishield cover ensures that no one is without cover for catastrophic financially crippling medical bills. Nobody would want to get hospitalised and claim Medishield frivolously, because every claim comes with requirements of deductible and co-payment for the patient to pay.

Anyway, you revealed your ignorance. After all these years, you still don't know how Medishield works.

Not that I am ignorant, it is that you have a problem of presenting your case here. Even Locke was thinking that you are saying patients need not pay while Medishield has 100% coverage. Read again.

You have raised your own experience talking about how you need to pay certain percentage of your medical bill even after subsidies. So the impression you gave us is that you want 100% Medishield coverage. If that is not the case, then so be it.

If you are talking about Government providing the Medishield premium, then there is no issue about why you need to pay your part on your medical bill. So what's the problem? You still need to pay your medical bill, no reason for you to make noise about that.

Free premium for Medishield? Where is the money going to come from? Government? Then that is no longer call medical insurance, it is pure Government subsidy because the citizens pay nothing to get subsidized.

So what don't know the stuff?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It's already so. In fact, it has always been so since it was introduced in the mid 80s. Whatever gives you the idea that Medishield covers 100%? Your ignorance for the past quarter of a century while ranting upon it is amazing. I'm glad to be at your service here to enlighten you a little. In fact, through the deductible and co-payment and various itemised limits, the average claim size has been 50 to 60%. That was why Khaw Boon Wan increased the premiums to allow for adjustments toward achieving average claim size of 60 to 70%.

Not that I don't know about co-payment. Just that you gave the impression that the Medishield should have 100% coverage as you were complaining about you paying your medical bills.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Ramseth]

I accept your right to point of view that all should pay premiums, no free coverage. But note that I'm not pissed at having to a portion of my medical bill. I'm pissed at having to pay premiums a policy that has deductible and co-payment clauses so that there's no claim even when I'm hospitalised. I don't mind that actually, the subsidised bill was still affordable. I'm just think, if the illness was very serious and costly to care and cure, what would happen to one withouth Medishield?

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

I accept your right to point of view that all should pay premiums, no free coverage. But note that I'm not pissed at having to a portion of my medical bill. I'm pissed at having to pay premiums a policy that has deductible and co-payment clauses so that there's no claim even when I'm hospitalised. I don't mind that actually, the subsidised bill was still affordable. I'm just think, if the illness was very serious and costly to care and cure, what would happen to one withouth Medishield?

Then that is the matter of the clause of the Medishield. It is a matter of the level of deductibles and the coverage.

Goh Meng Seng

 

[scroobal]

99.999% of Singaporeans have no idea what the constitutional argument is all about or clearly understand that it is the wrong argument. This is a country, where people can hop on a plane and hit the sandy beaches of the gold coast at a moment's notice. Its might have currency in Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Kim's North Korea.

We all know that Chee is doing it for foreign NGOs, his close party associates are doing it to engage the govt as an end rather than a means as all other options are close and the close party supporters are behind it becaused they have no clue what to do and follow the leader sounds about right.

The issue is a climate for serious democratic institutions, fair elections and removal of draconian laws, rules and regulations as well as a brain dead civil service.

If a hawker stall says it sells cooked grain with aroma of fowl accomppanied by special fowl meat and hot fruits of the capsicum family which is an accurate description of our well chicken rice, no one will have a clue except for some close supporters of the owner.

Dear Scroobal

All I can say is that if Alex was a practicing lawyer, I would be knocking on his door :_)). He has both the incisiveness, ruthlessness and cold legal logic so lacking within the SDP.

If anything he has demonstrated or the SDP has demonstrated, that what it has won with blood can be squandered away in ignorance, leading a cow to water and all the rest of it. The question is will they focus like a laser on the "unconstitutionality" of the administration of the act or will they seek to make a claim that the entire act is "unconstitutional" because the " admin and rules " is itself unconstitutional.



Locke

 

[kingrant]

99.999% of Singaporeans have no idea what the constitutional argument is all about or clearly understand that it is the wrong argument. This is a country, where people can hop on a plane and hit the sandy beaches of the gold coast at a moment's notice. Its might have currency in Taliban controlled Afghanistan or Kim's North Korea.

We all know that Chee is doing it for foreign NGOs, his close party associates are doing it to engage the govt as an end rather than a means as all other options are close and the close party supporters are behind it becaused they have no clue what to do and follow the leader sounds about right.

The issue is a climate for serious democratic institutions, fair elections and removal of draconian laws, rules and regulations as well as a brain dead civil service.

If a hawker stall says it sells cooked grain with aroma of fowl accomppanied by special fowl meat and hot fruits of the capsicum family which is an accurate description of our well chicken rice, no one will have a clue except for some close supporters of the owner.

Guess the older Lee knows this point well and exploits it to the fullest.

But his views are no longer cutting the ice with the younger gen of more highly educated voters. Even as the rookie Ministers try to talk like him, their words are falling on deaf ears. What SDP should do is to simplify the PAP's constant breaking of laws for the masses.

 

[Nice-Gook]

We all know that Chee is doing it for foreign NGOs, his close party associates are doing it to engage the govt as an end rather than a means as all other options are close and the close party supporters are behind it becaused they have no clue what to do and follow the leader sounds about right.

This very word exposes you as a PAP apologist.The same shit thrown on JBJ as a foreign stooge.:oIo:

 

[eatshitndie]

This very word exposes you as a PAP apologist.The same shit thrown on JBJ as a foreign stooge.:oIo:

no, he's not. he has an axe to grind with them, especially their dear leader.

 

[siaosdp]

Oi Mad Man Yap.... now you want to pretend to be a JAG lawyer ar? Bloody hell, see you cry in court now so tough!

why he cry in court i thot hero never cry? shame shame bayi shame!

 

[scroobal]

Absolutely. SDP has to contsantly keep in mind what the PAP has failed to do and not raise abstract issues. They have the best media setup amongst the opposition parties. In fact their website is well designed and professional but its the substance. Its has to resonate constantly with the voters.

Its not a difficult task as the PAP are constantly doing themselves in, the tyrants that they are.

What SDP should do is to simplify the PAP's constant breaking of laws for the masses.

 

[Nice-Gook]

no, he's not. he has an axe to grind with them, especially their dear leader.

If you think so ,please explain.FYI.The Internet Brigade comes in many shade and color.Sometimes just 1 chappy with many nicks.They do shadow fights in forums....Many in the old forum knows Scroobal agenda rather well...If you care to notice hardly any PAP apologist dares to support PAP in a forum like this....Generally they run with you.Empathizing and sympathizing with you and badmouthing PAP.

But,when the push and shove comes to the crunch--in critical issues; they reveal themselves as PAP apologists.

It's old tactic but a hard act to upkeep.Somewhere along the line they usually slip.

 

[eatshitndie]

If you think so ,please explain.FYI.The Internet Brigade comes in many shade and color.Sometimes just 1 chappy with many nicks.They do shadow fights in forums....Many in the old forum knows Scroobal agenda rather well...If you care to notice hardly any PAP apologist dares to support PAP in a forum like this....Generally they run with you.Empathizing and sympathizing with you and badmouthing PAP.

But,when the push and shove comes to the crunch--in critical issues; they reveal themselves as PAP apologists.

It's old tactic but a hard act to upkeep.Somewhere along the line they usually slip.

there are sinkapoor patriots and there are pap apologists. not all sinkapoor patriots are pap apologists. and not all opposition sympathizers are sinkapoor patriots. the pap are not always wrong. only the extremists who have their arses reamed daily by the pap sadists and feel the pain think the pap are always wrong. there are those who have their arses reamed 24 by 7 x 365 and yet feel shiok every second are true pap apologists. if once in a while someone feels a sharp pain in his arse, his senses have woken up and he's no longer a true pap apologist. nobody likes another person sticking up his arse except the pinkies, pervs and pimps in the pap.

 

[Nice-Gook]

there are sinkapoor patriots and there are pap apologists. not all sinkapoor patriots are pap apologists. and not all opposition sympathizers are sinkapoor patriots. the pap are not always wrong. only the extremists who have their arses reamed daily by the pap sadists and feel the pain think the pap are always wrong. .

Mmmm, if I read you correctly--are you saying that Scroobal arse being rimmed by Dr.Chee on a daily basis?...Now why would Dr.Chee wants to do that to Scroobal.Is she a cousin of LKY or what?

Ah,that explains her nick..:p

 

[leetahbar]

Dear Scroobal,

I have learnt much from peoplel like Lamei.

Sometimes, you will just have to be petty and personal with people who will always get petty and personal with you.

Politicians portrayed as "good nice baby kissing people" is just a myth creation. There will always be people who take your Mr. Nice way as a sign of weakness. I could be 100 times more vital, sarcastic and even vicious if I want to. But in this case, I am purely pointing out my real thought and I couldn't find a better word to call an idiot an idiot.

Goh Meng Seng

ah seng, u ve realised that too late!

when the friendly blurcock baey yam keng was in her territory, she ragged him. recently, lau lee was there - yes, in her territory to share the biggest moon cake with the residents there, ddid we see her appearance or bragging by posting here?

no. again on the poor baey, she even tried to ruin his nice friendly mp by backstabbing him by sending a toxic poisonous mail to - of all person - lau lee!!

and so here he was - the great powderful lau lee in her abc territory and where did she hide herself?

petty people are cowards and most likely also a loser. they only take on the nice, honest and simple folk. when they encounter tough people like lau lee, they will cower and shiver.

they also accuse paps are the bullies but then isn't their behaviour similar?